Gerald (Jerry) Zezas

Home » 2014

Yearly Archives: 2014


I’m Not Backing Down On This

George Bush’s leading economic adviser, Michael Boskin..back in 2009 said …

Oh, just read it for yourself



The weak can only protest and demonstrate. The powerful pass laws and buy bigger guns.

The horrific shooting of two cops in NYC last night will be addressed rapidly and powerfully, with the help of the wind-up-toy outrage machine of political punditry. Police chiefs will demand bigger guns, better vests and increased protection for their rank-and-file as a result of this dastardly act.

It is likely that many citizens will now buy more guns, (since that tends to be their reaction to virtually everything) not for the purpose of actually protecting themselves from some erstwhile threat, but rather because, in their heart of hearts, they like having lots of guns in case they see an excuse to kill one of these, err, ahh, thugs. (Wink, wink).

Although the killing of cops is certainly horrible, it is not worse than the killing of innocent, unarmed kids in the streets. In some ways, it’s not even equal.

Cops become cops voluntarily. They are highly trained and given expensive weaponry. They also get a decent paycheck. To suggest, as is often heard, that their sole purpose is to protect us, is a bit of an exaggeration. Cops become cops because they want to have the state-sanctioned power that comes with it. Where else, other than in a war zone, can you be issued tactical training, a badge and uniform, and lots and lots of weaponry with which to do your job? In what other profession can you simply order a citizen to do something at your discretion, and have the legal right to detain them, and in some cases, injure them if they refuse, as was done to Eric Garner with the choke-hold in NYC? Anyone who believes that this is not an important fringe benefit of being a cop is naïve at best and delusional at worst. If your only desire is to help people, you can just as easily become an EMT. Cops become cops for lots of other, rarely named reasons. One of them is power. That power comes with a price.

Cops know, from the day they leave the academy, that they will be targeted by certain people. This is why they are issued substantial weaponry and self-defense training. Unarmed black kids walking home from a high-school dance are not afforded the same protection. There is no institutionalized system of training innocent black kids to protect themselves from racist cops.

When someone walks up to a cop in a car and kills him, that person is demonstrating the lowest level of humanity there can be-the killing of innocents. But that is not worse than when a cop kills a kid-as some would have us believe. The life of a policeman or woman is not more valuable than a black teenager walking home with a bag of Skittles. They are equally valuable.

It is the situation in Ferguson and other places that will cause the militant crazies to come out and start killing cops. But how different is this than when the trailer-park commandos came out to defend Cliven Bundy’s refusal to pay taxes on the government land he uses for free. Sure, no one got killed during that stand-off, but that is only because the US Marshals backed down in order to avoid bloodshed. These low-rent mouth-breathing gun lovers were openly threatening to kill government law enforcement officers over something that they believed in, AND NOT A SINGLE ONE WAS ARRESTED! How different are they from the maniacs who will now come out of the woodwork to kill cops in NYC over what they believe in? What’s the difference, other than the skin color of those with their fingers on the trigger?

The difference is that those protesting nationally are protesting the killing of innocent kids. The idiots on Cliven Bundy’s ranch were protesting the use of land to graze cattle. Does anyone sense a bit of a valuation problem here? To many in this country it is justified to use violence or the threat of violence to defend some ill-understood constitutional freedom. But when it comes to protesting the killing innocent black kids, well, for some reason that just doesn’t rise to the same level, does it?

Those who do kill cops will justify their actions by citing all the innocents who are killed by cops, all those who are sent to the electric chair for crimes they didn’t commit and the humiliation via stop and frisk laws suffered by an oppressed group of people. That is not a justifiable excuse, but it is the excuse that they will use. And it is the killing of so many young black kids that is triggering it.

When an innocent person is killed by a cop, or a cop wannabe, the justification machine will come out in full force and display irrelevant facts, such as the fact that Travon Martin had smoked pot or that Michael Brown may have stolen a pack of cigars from a convenience store. They will also cite witnesses who testify in front of grand juries about Michael Brown’s stance when approaching the cop, only to have the prosecutor in the case admit that this particular witness was not even in the area when the shooting happened.

Those in charge will use this information to justify the actions of and exonerate the cops or other white citizens who killed these primarily black kids. But there is no quid pro quo. The families of these kids, as well as others, who live in their neighborhoods and are scared to walk around at night for fear of violence from cops, have no recourse other than to protest in the streets and, for this as well, they are vilified. Hate them because they’re black, and hate them more for protesting the fact that you hate them because they’re black.

The people who are killed by errant cops have no police union presidents to defend them. They can’t demand bigger guns or better bullet-proof vests to help protect them from the cops. Cops, on the other hand, have all these things available to them, and will use them. That’s for sure.

This Is No Longer Even A Challenge

On March 3rd of this year, Rudy Giuliani, ex-mayor of NYC, Republican Presidential candidate and 9/11 Tourette syndrome poster-child, said, “Putin decides what he wants to do, and he does it in half a day. That’s what you call a leader. President Obama has to think about things first”.

Soon after on Fox’s The Kelly File, Fox strategic analyst Ralph Peters referred to Putin as a “real leader” who, unlike Obama, “believes in his country”.

Another conservative pundit praised Putin because “he likes to hang out with his shirt off and tells the West if you mess with me I’ll kill you all.” Even half-term, half-wit Sarah Palin compared the conservative’s hero with President Obama and said, ”people look at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil, and our President wears mom jeans and equivocates.” (How ridiculous! Since when does Sarah Palin use words like “equivocates”? I’m still trying to figure out what “refudiate” means.)

Another Fox analyst said, “In Putin, you’ve got a big strong guy, muscular and shirtless on a horse who wrestles tigers, (they have horses who wrestle tigers?) while the President wears mom jeans.” It is unclear why conservatives are obsessed with mom jeans, whatever they are, but it is likely an effort to compare President Obama’s diplomacy-first foreign policy with a big shirtless leader who subscribes to the George W. Bush foreign policy of pre-emptively invading sovereign nations; the conservative’s idea of a “real leader.”

Yet, as of now, the ruble has plummeted 50% against the dollar this year, both Apple and General Motors have suspended sales in Russia because of staggering inflation (remember when we were supposed to get that?), Russians are once again finding themselves on food lines and Russia is a pariah among nations due to its invasion of Crimea and Ukraine. Leadership, bitches!

Oh and, in case you hadn’t noticed, oil is down almost 50% (remember when high oil prices were blamed on Obama? We’ll take the praise now for the low prices, thank-you), the Dow is approaching 18,000 and the American economy is booming. But Obama keeps his shirt on and wears mom-jeans. Oh yeah and he, ahh, err, “thinks about things first”. What a wimp, am I right? I mean, who wants a leader who thinks?

Hmmm, I wonder who’s on Fox today? Maybe Dick Cheney telling us he’d torture again in a minute, Mitt Romney telling us how bad a job Obama is doing on the economy, and Jeb Bush (with his wife, who is a Mexican immigrant), telling us how all those Mexicans should be sent home. Or, maybe Marco Rubio (who’s parents are Cuban immigrants) will tell us why its un-American to help Cubans, (you know, as compared to Iraqis, Syrians, Israelis, Afghanis and everybody else).

Yup, Fox reports and you decide. They report reductive, fear-mongering, racist scare tactics, and my Repub friends decide to keep watching and believe everything they say.

To all you people who conveniently forget all the things that are said on Fox that are ignorant, fact-challenged and just plain old lies, don’t worry. I’ll keep reminding you…

Because as long as you keep watching and believing, someone needs to.

Aren’t you tired of listening to these idiots who continue to treat you like one?

Re-Elect Romney for President

Housing prices are back to near where they were in 2007, before the recession.
Housing starts are back to near where they were in 2007, before the recession.
GM is once again the largest car manufacturer on the planet.
The rest of the US auto industry is healthier than it has been in years.
Unemployment, once over 10% in 2008, is now 5.8%
The Dow Jones is almost 18,000, up from a low of 7552. A 250% increase.
George Bush’s last deficit was $1.4 trillion. Current 2014 deficit is $464 billion. YES, THE DEFICIT IS DOWN OVER ONE TRILLION DOLLARS IN THE LAST 6 YEARS.

Jeez, good thing we elected Romney in 2012 and threw out that anti-business socialist Obama.

No, wait…

Of Torture and Drone Strikes

Surprise! Fox “News” can’t stand when anyone reminds them how Dick Cheney and his lap dog (you know, George “Cowboy” Bush) genuinely destroyed so many good aspects of this country.

Now that the torture report is out (you know, the one released by a committee of 8 Democrats and 7 Repubs), they are tripping over themselves trying to find some, any, equivalency between what everyone but they agree is torture and Obama’s policy of using drones to kill enemy soldiers.

It amazes me when I see their glib and self-satisfied looks after they ask a question that their own synaptical processes are too slow to figure out an answer to and so assume that no one else could. You know, someone other than those who work at Fox.

So, last week, when one of these dweezels equated purposeful torture with unintended casualties in a war, everyone else in front of the camera assumed that there simply couldn’t be any counter-argument to that premise, and sat there looking like Little Jack Horner after pulling his thumb out of the Xmas pie or, in other words, quite self-satisfied.

The premise that these gray-matter deprived yuck-yucks had missed was that there are alternatives to torture. Many alternatives. Police use them all the time to get information from criminals. John McCain, himself a Repub but also a torture victim, has said time and again that the result of most torture is that the victim simply tells his antagonists what they want to hear, rendering it useless.

Drone attacks, on the other hand, are not done frivolously or when there are alternatives. They are done in the course of war when an enemy has been identified and the drone is chosen out of all the available alternatives (soldiers raiding a village, as an example, risking their lives and an equal amount of innocent lives). They represent trained military personnel KNOWING who they want to kill and a calculated risk that others in the area will be killed.

Furthermore, I defy anyone to say that Barack Obama has shown any tendency to kill without concern for civilians. If you believe Fox “News”, he is the weakling who worries too much about others. Those interviewed on their shows have gone so far as to call him a Muslim sympathizer, so you’d be hard pressed to prove that he has little regard for human life, especially those of civilians in combat areas.

But I know that any demonstration of this level of erudition or even, you know, thought, makes their viewers return to their regular habits of watching The View, Saturday morning cartoons or their favorite televangelist, which is why Fox goes out of its way to avoid any semblance of it.

The amazing part is that these spokesmodels are still so umbilically attached and so feel the need to defend the political disasters of the Bush/Cheney cabal that they actually defend, on television, the torturing of human beings. They seem to delight in saying “well, if you get to kill them with drones, we should get to torture them”, as two schoolchildren fighting over who gets the larger portion of desert might do.

Sorry, I take that back. That was an unfair disparagement of schoolchildren.




Fat Black Man/Fat White Man

Eric Garner, the man killed by being put into a choke hold by NYC cops, was probably committing a crime. Not a violent crime, not a crime against humanity, not a robbery, not a drug offense. No, Eric Garner was probably committing the crime of selling loose cigarettes, or “loosies” as we used to call them when I was growing up in the Bronx. This is a crime because loose cigarettes are typically not taxed the way normal cigarettes are, so the government does not get its fair share of taxes from their sale. Eric Garner was probably committing a taxation crime. For this taxation crime, the officer felt compelled to take Garner into custody. Garner resisted, the cop threw a choke hold on him and, well, you know the rest.

All you need to remember is that Eric Garner, a fat black man who lived in a run-down neighborhood in NYC is dead for what likely amounts to a few hundred dollars in tax money. And because he resisted by refusing to put his hands behind his back.

Cliven Bundy, the millionaire white man who grazes his cattle on public land while refusing to pay the taxes required for that privilege was definitely committing a crime. As I just stated, he had admitted to refusing to pay these taxes based on the premise that he doesn’t acknowledge the right of the federal government to levy these taxes on public land. Yes, Cliven Bundy was definitely committing a taxation crime. And not only did he resist arrest, he got his buddies to come out and point guns at federal marshals while doing so! Yet Cliven Bundy, a white millionaire who committed, and admitted, his tax crime, is not only alive, but he’s free to drive around in his Cadillac and thumb his nose at the government that tried to collect their fair share of taxes.

And all you need to remember about Cliven Bundy is that a fat white millionaire who lives out on his thousand acre ranch in Nevada is alive for what likely amounts to millions of dollars in tax money. And because he resisted by threatening to kill federal marshals.

If anyone can explain this to me, I’m happy to listen…

Your Own Private Idaho

Just came across an article today that compelled me to do some research regarding religion, abortion and children. And I found out something amazing…

In 6 states, Idaho being one of them, it is legal for a parent to refuse medical treatment for their child if the parents truly believe that prayer is the only method acceptable to heal their children of diseases. Yes, in these states, a parent can claim a right to let their child die if they don’t believe that god wants us to use medicine to “artificially” heal them. One such group is known as the Followers of Christ.

Yet, in Idaho and most of these other states, recent legislation has made it dramatically more difficult for a woman to have an abortion. in Idaho, specifically, the government refuses to allow public funds to pay for an abortion under most circumstances, and adds numerous restrictions to doing so even when legal.

Yes folks, you heard it here. In at least 6 states, Idaho being one of them, you cannot abort a fetus which has no chance of survival on its own without paying for it yourself (even if you have insurance) and adhering to various guidelines set by the state to “protect unborn children”. It would likely be completely illegal in these states if the Supreme Court had not deemed it legal in Roe v Wade.

Yet, friends and neighbors, after they are born, you can let them die a slow, painful death if you just happen to be stupid enough to think that god listens to prayers and specifically watches out for children. Yup, that’s perfectly OK as long as you put gods name on it.

It is estimated that over 150 children have been allowed to die this way since 1972 in Idaho alone…

Praise Jesus?

%d bloggers like this: